Yep.........Bilbo and GW are both a military disgrace. They both make Dan Quayle look like a war hero.

I think we need to let the primaries process happen and let the candidates sort themselves out. I think conservative democrats play well to the mainstream public and this guy may fit the bill, but is too early to say.

Conservative democrat? He has stated that hes against ownership of "assault weapons", just ask Californians what constitutes "assault weapons"ie color, pistol grip etc. Hes a true blue liberal democrat right down the line, hes hoping his military service will make him appear more mainstream. I will vote for no canidate that has no grasp on true gun ownership and will not uphold the 2nd amendment as one would the first. Dean would be a better suited canidate on this issue.

What do you need an assault weapon for?

Read The 2nd admendment!!! DUH

You don't achieve four stars and lead a NATO force into combat being a far left wing liberal.

I don't think they had assault rifles when that was written. Not that I really have a problem with people owning them, I don't really understand why you'd need one. But then people don't understand why I spend the money on my bike that I do.

I guess if you have to explain it I wouldn't understand.

Where does it mention assault weapons, bazookas or the like? It doesn't. Nuf said.

dude...c'mon...you've heard the rumblings from the great white north...those Canadian hopheads could invade at any moment....

And the fisrt admendment was written before the internet, televison,radio,and most newspapers!! nuf said

Do you want politicians to interpret what an assault weapon is? A mini-14 is an "assault weapon" in the eyes of government and it happens to be one of the most versatle weapons i own. Its good for home protection, hunting, varmint control and just plinking. The list gos on. I personally own three assault weapons that i enjoy shooting, whats it to you or the government that i own them or not. That 12 gauge in your closet will kill people just as dead or that 10/22 with large clips will also do the same.

Exactly Racerdan,
My SKS with bayonet= assalt weapon
My SKS without bayonet= rifle
Makes no sense at all!!

My intent wasnt to create a gun control debate. It was just my take on Wes Clark and my opinion of him. My biggest issue is freedom and the whole constitution, not just what serves ones ideal.

Where does it mention single shots or no bayonets? It dosent. Nuff said. I sure hope i interpreted that correctly.

The constitution was written when muskets were the arms of choice. You do admit a line has to be drawn somewhere though. We can't have rocket launchers on our trucks and torpedo tubes on our boats. Thus the dilemma...where to draw the line.

stlhead,
The same could be said about Freedom of speech. When the constitution was written it amounted to saying what you want in the group around you. It didnt say anything about broadcasting what you want world wide. Yes I believe in the 1st and 2nd admendments. But I dont believe in gutting the meaning of the 2nd to make some liberals happy. Guns dont kill people kill. I have been a life member of the NRA for 35 years and am glad we have them to protect our rights.
And what you know a gun shop that carries rocket launchers that would be a nice addition to the collection.

There is no dilemma, keep it as is. Crimes are not committed with assault weapons, but with mostly stolen and illegally obtained handguns. The areas with the most stringent gun laws have the highest gun violence. Like Chicago and D.C. Machine guns are legal in over 15 states (not Washington unfortunatley but in Oregon they are) And they have accounted for no crime or violence. Hmm. Law abiding citizens rarely commit crimes with firearms. You get the occasional murder/ suicide or workplace killing, but compare that to the 40,000+ killed in auto accidents and cars are no where to be found in the constitution. He who would legislate safety over liberty, deserves neither. Of course Stlhd i am only speaking of small arms and not bazookas and landmines, but sporterized civilian(semi-auto) military rifles. If the military uses them they must be of good quality and suitable for hunting and sport shooting.

Yeah the constitution was written when there were no fancy guns but so was the treaty written before the indians had powerboats and .300 ulta mags to take what they need. They still get to and I will still get to keep the guns I own.

You simple minded people are blind to the fact that they are smarter than you think. They know they can't just take away our guns or stop us from fishing so they take it away from us little by little. No trapping no hounds no barbs no etc etc etc. Get my drift. We have to keep every right that we have now or our kids won't be able to enjoy half of what we have now.

Uh Oh! Now it's on to gun control! h2o, I gotta feelin' this one's goin' PAST 300!

I agree with you on the assault weapon issue. I, too, believe it's law abiding citizens that own them here in the US.

Curious, though, what may happen in the future with assault weapons because of the Patriot Act. Those weapons could very easily be classified as "terrorists' tools." I can forsee those registered to own assault weapons ending up on a list of "known owners of terrorist weapons."

Just a thought. Paranoid thought maybe, but a thought none the less.

Yeah, i think every law-biding citizen ought to have an assault weapon in their house like the Swiss do. Just stirring it a little.

Goharley, doesent the Patriot act have an expiration date? I do know that both sides of the aisle have been grumbling about its far reaching and unforseen consequences.

Don't worry. I am not trying to take anyones guns away. As if I could anyway. I grew up hunting. I just have a hard time understanding why anyone feels the need to own assault weapons or have bayonets and such. You'll never explain it to my satisfaction so don't try.